Talk:Color blindness

Famous colour blind artist

Clinical and Experimental Optometry has an article showing that Clifton Pugh on biographical, inheritance and other grounds was was a protanope. I have looked hard but cannot see any place suitable for this information in the article. There is no section for "notable color blind people" though such sections exist for example for Prosopagnosia. I have put this information with reference (more details are in the online abstract) in Color blindness and occupations though this is not the ideal place. However the information is important since it shows that color blindness should not stop people for seeking to become artists if that is their talent.

Rename article to "Color vision deficiency"

The article should really be renamed to "Color vision deficiency" and "Color blindness" redirect to it. As stated in the article it is more common to be deficient in color vision, but not lacking it! Therefore color blindness (not perceiving colors at all) is a special/maximum case of color vision deficiency. Using color blind for describing a condition with a broad range is a very unprecise top-level term, derogatory, and perpetuates ignorance.

Thanks for considering the renaming.

Colourblindness in WWII

During WWII people with colourblindness were used on occasion to detect camoflage - there are a number of webpages on the subject (but for technical reasons I cannot call them up at the moment). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You likely speak about deuteranomaly – technically it is not a color blindness, and it is rather common condition. Can you make an article about it? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Not so much to "detect" camouflage, but to look at black and white photos of camouflaged items, in which they could see much more detail than non-colourblind people. Old_Wombat (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Could see much more detail at black and white photos? It is an utterly ignorant speculation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Uhh, I thought it was self-explanatory, but obviously not. My understanding is that most WWII photography was black and white. Those "not coolourblind" (which may well be deuteranomaly) could not distinguish what the camouflaged objects were in these black and white images - that is, against them, the camouflage was successful. But those who were "colourblind", were not "fooled" by the camouflage, and could see what the camouflaged objects were. Are you saying that none of this is true?

Old_Wombat (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of IM's criticism is once a black and white photograph has been taken, then any issue about color perception has been removed. There are no colors to perceive differently: everything is gray scale. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that real-life scenes or color photographs to contain camouflage that works with normal vision but fails with abnormal vision. Two pigments can be a color match even if their spectra vary widely. Glrx (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 August 2013

In the Further Reading section, please change McIntyre,D. John to McIntyre, Donald (this is the correct name; I've got the book) JimCaligari (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Glrx (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Tritanopia and blue-yellow distinction

While Tritanopia is commonly referred to as blue-yellow color blindness, the statement that tritanopes cannot distinguish blue from yellow is wrong.

If you look at this image in the article:

Blue and yellow are clearly distinguishable (blue appears green, yellow appears pink). Tritanopia should more accurately be called blue-green color blindness, since tritanopes actually cannot distinguish blue from green. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 16:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The use of the rainbow flags is disputed; there's a perception issue; see above. That two particular monochrome colors can be distinguished is not surprising; shifting the colors slightly might find an isochrome. The rainbow flag colors were not chosen to highlight abnormal vision. Diagostic tests for symptoms do not used saturated colors. Glrx (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there are no actual yellow cones in the human eye; Tritanopia is the lack of blue cones, and thus everything is seen in shades of red and green. Based on the image, it appears the red cones are more sensitive to yellow, while the green cones are more sensitive to blue. I personally think the term "blue-yellow color blindness" was named for the sake of completeness, and for the fact that tritanopes cannot see (NOT distinguish) the colors blue and yellow. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 20:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I went ahead and made my suggested corrections (WP:BOLD). ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 22:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Andros' edits, from his comments above, sound in WP:OR. I'm tempted to revert since additions change some meanings and do not have sources. Several google hits repeat trianopes cannot distinguish blue and yellow. (eg, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/605982/tritanopia) Glrx (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a common misconception due to the common name of the condition. And Britannica isn't any more reliable than Wikipedia. If you look at the image, blue and yellow are obviously distinguishable. Remember that the L (red), M (green), and S (blue) cones are not sensitive to any specific wavelength; they cover a continuous range of wavelengths. The L cones are more sensitive to long wavelengths, M cones to middle wavelengths, and S cones to short wavelengths. There are no discontinuities in the range of wavelengths that that each cone can perceive, therefore it isn't scientifically possible that a tritanope can distinguish blue from green but not from yellow, since green is closer to blue on the spectrum than yellow is. Based on the image, the L cones are more sensitive to yellow, while the M cones are more sensitive to blue. Perhaps if the shade of yellow had more green in its hue it could perhaps appear greenish to a tritanope . ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 21:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing Evolutionary arguments section

I'm improving the Evolutionary arguments section for a class assignment, and my edits are currently in my sandbox. Before I post it, I was hoping to get some constructive criticism on my additions and edits. Thank you! Larry.monocello (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

When making a request like this you need to give a link to your sandbox. I'll leave some comments on the sandbox talkpage. Richerman (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded my edits. There was a section about macaques in this area that didn't really fit, and also wasn't well sourced, so I deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry.monocello (talk Larry.monocello (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Larry.monocello who added this is in user:Sanetti's Darwinian medicine class. I looked over what you did and it seems entirely appropriate and useful. You found multiple sources which backed the content you added, you learned the wikitext markup and formatted everything properly, and you took initiative in modifying existing text. Thanks. It seems like you are expecting your classmate to review this further - I expect that to be even more productive. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)